It is relatively uncommon for parties to submit expert declarations in the preliminary-response phase of an IPR proceeding, but recently the Patent Owner in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc. effectively used that...more
4/21/2025
/ Claim Construction ,
Expert Testimony ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Life Sciences ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art
When issued patent drawings are not explicitly made to scale, the Federal Circuit recently confirmed that arguments relying solely or predominately on the features of those drawings, such as line thickness, are “unavailing.” ...more
It goes without saying that claim construction is an important issue, but the PTAB’s recent decision in Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, IPR2020-00558, Paper 66 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2024), shows not only that reasonable minds can differ...more
3/29/2024
/ Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
Proof of prior art is an issue that often arises in inter partes and post grant review proceedings before the PTAB. In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit explained the quantum of proof that is required to establish prior...more
This blog has previously discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Baxter Corp. Englewood, — F.3d —, No. 2020-1937, 2021 WL 2176796 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2021). See Telepharma Disconnect: Federal...more
This blog has previously discussed the effect of several different types of estoppel. See, e.g., Estoppel Estopped for Remanded Claims, Reminder: Estoppel May Not Preclude Prior-Art Systems, and PGR Estoppel Applies to...more
The estoppel statute precludes a defendant who has challenged a claim in an IPR reaching final written decision from later challenging that claim on any ground that it raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., — F.3d —, 2020 WL 543427, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4. 2020), could not be more clear: “[W]e hold that the Board may not...more
2/19/2020
/ Final Written Decisions ,
Indefiniteness ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Means-Plus-Function ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Samsung ,
Section 112
Reexamination can be stayed pending IPR proceedings for good cause shown. The PTAB recently found good cause for a stay had been established when the reexamination proceedings and IPR proceedings had only a single claim in...more
Petitioners beware. The PTAB will not “play archaeologist with the record” or assume the burden of making arguments if the Petitioner fails to present the asserted reasons for invalidity with the required specificity. Amazon...more
In a recent PTAB decision, Petitioners learned the importance of addressing decisions from related IPRs when making arguments before the PTAB. Apple, Inc. and FitBit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., Case IPR2017-00319 (PTAB Aug. 6,...more